May 15, 2007

Unfortunately, I went out tonight and screwed up the TiV0ing. I'll read the transcript tomorrow. But, for now, if you've got anything to say, go ahead.

ADDED: I'm listening to commentary on CNN, and they all seem to think that Giuliani won. "He had a Ronald Reagan" moment, they're saying (after something Ron Paul said about Iraq).

MORE: I wonder how many people watched this debate. I only noticed that there was a debate when I was reading the newspaper the day of the event. I immediately went to set the TiVo, but it was not listed as a program. I had to go look at the newspaper and see what channel and time it was on. I went back to the TiVo and set it for what I thought was right, that is, setting it for the Fox News show the debate preempted. But I made the time zone mistake, and only got the second hour of the show.

I started to watch the second hour, but I felt like I'd missed the main action and quit after a few minutes. In fact, I got to see the part where Giuliani jumped in after Ron Paul suggested that we'd provoked the 9/11 attacks. Big deal! Paul is an unimportant character, and the occasion for outrage was obvious. So Giuliani had the fire to take advantage of the situation. It didn't matter to me, because I don't care about Paul. In fact, one of the reasons I turned off the TV was that I had no patience for watching all the minor candidates (even knowing I can fast-forward through them).

I also saw the part where they talked about torture, and I do think this was significant. McCain took a clear stand against torture and made a solid and nicely understated reference to the torture he himself endured in Vietnam. After that, Giuliani aggressively embraced "enhanced interrogation techniques," a term used by Brit Hume in posing the question to him, and it seemed like a stark contrast to McCain, even though Giuliani's answer included a quick line rejecting torture. Romney followed on and seemed to copy Giuliani.

So, though I only saw a little, it seems I saw what the news reports are saying was the liveliest part of the debate. Why, then, did I turn it off? It was too late at night for politics for me. I was tired and annoyed at my TiVo mistake and irritated at having to see candidates who have no chance of winning. But also, I think some of what people are crediting as liveliness was created by applause and cheering from the audience, and I intensely disliked this interrupting crowd noise. I though Fox News should have required the audience to keep quiet, the way MSNBC did with the two previous debates.

I wonder if this audience response is the reason Rudy Giuliani gave a better performance: He does well playing to a crowd and gets energy from people. This may seem cheap or unfair in a debate, but it's probably a quality you want your candidate to have as he goes out on the campaign trail.

The early on-line polling, even from Insty's site, had a strong Paul presence. Sounds to me as though the netroots organized a response. Which I'm okay with if the minions actually watched the debate and voted. Ya think?

Roger...yes..although it was on Faux Noise and a lot of people have been dead for quite a while so you have to differentiate the audience from those interested from those decomposing on the sofa with the TV on.

Depressing, HD--here I had something important to do like replacing the flapper valve on my toilet; say, HD: I noted on an earlier thread you seem to be disappearing in the Althouse vortex--it was the cleavage shot, wasnt it. You can tell us; it wont get beyond the locker room. :)

I got to see the part where Giuliani jumped in after Ron Paul suggested that we'd provoked the 9/11 attacks. Big deal! Paul is an unimportant character, and the occasion for outrage was obvious. So Giuliani had the fire to take advantage of the situation.

It's obvious that Giuliani (a) wasn't listening to what Paul was saying, or(b) doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand anything but the simplest ideas, or(c) strategically distorted Paul's comments in order to provide the audience with a phony "Rudy's a tough guy" moment that they could hoot about.

I'm patiently waiting for Thompson to officially announce and the GOP will have thier nominee

...and its a moot point for me anyway, I also prefer Thompson to anyone on last night. And Newt too. Instapundit is running a poll, and the guy who didn't show up is winning. Ha.

BTW, I tracked down the source of the "Gingrich served his wife with divorce papers in the hospital" smear - not true, its gossip, came from an opponent's campaign ad and slithered its way into Leftist Mythology. So I guess I'm right to discount every unsubstantiated assertion from the Left. Liars all.

Luckyoldson: It was more like a "who's got the biggest penis" fest.

Ya know, in High School it was always the lame virgin males bragging about how good they are in bed. Likewise, the ones with no penis are always bringing up size. Go figure.

NYTs: "In 1992, his Democratic opponent, Tony Center, ran a television advertisement against Mr. Gingrich that said -- erroneously -- that Mr. Gingrich delivered divorce papers to his wife the day after her cancer operation.

Also:

Ellsworth: "The record is unanimous that he never gave or served any legal process on her while she was hospitalized. There is an October 22, 1992 story in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about this, which quotes a 1985 WaPo article. I don't think there are any free links available to these stories, but I will try to find them when I get the time."

The way the lefty liberals snipe at Guliani is interesting if not illuminating. He ought to be their favorite Republican. If they were intellectually honest, that is. But they aren't. What they are is afraid of him because he makes their candidates look so bad in comparison. And that's all they care about.

Digby agrees that it'sd all about whose got a bigger one and gets to be our next Commander Codpiece: It was quite interesting watching the Republicans debate down in South Carolina tonight. I think it's clear that this group has come to fully understand that winning the GOP nomination is all about the codpiece. These guys have just spent the last fifteen minutes of the debate trying to top each other on just how much torture they are willing to inflict. They sound like a bunch of psychotic 12 year olds, although considering the puerile nature of the "24" question it's not entirely their fault. This debate is a very clear insight into what really drives the GOP id…

Anyway, Ann Althouse, I came here to ask you to address the Comey testimony yesterday in which the former Deputy (and Acting) AG testified that Bush rodered eavesdropping after the DOJ (including John Ashcroft) concluded such actions were illegal.

"The program was reauthorized without us and without a signature from the Department of Justice attesting as to its legality."I suggest this knowing this blog has some ostensible relationship to The Law.

p.s. Note that right winger Drudge ignores the Comey testimony. "Nothing to see here, folks. Keep moving. No oral sex, no foul."

Ann, the audience was pretty quiet throughout. There were only a few times, mainly in the second half, of audience appluse.

I thought the quality of questions was very good. I didn't see the first debate, but this one was first-rate. The number of candidates is a problem.

Giuliani did not distort Paul's remarks. Paul's claim that 9/11 was a response to the first (continuing) Iraq war and our other involment in that region were not unacceptable or beyond the pale. But they happen to be incorrect, and Giuliani's response, while maybe delivered with a little more flourish than some may like, was exactly what was needed.

McCain did a good job of explaining his position on torture. Unfortunately, I don't buy it. If we were fighting the Brits, say, I'd expect that they would respond in kind in the treatment of our prisoners. The argument is ridiculous in the current conflict. Anybody who doubts that only needs to google "Nicholas Berg". McCain did say that in the given hypothetical he, as President, would take on the responsibility to do whatever was necessary, and I think this is good position. Others echoed it.

Of the main three, I thought both Giuliani and McCain acquitted themselves well. It's early, but right now I'd be comfortable with either as President. Romney made little impression on me, neither pro nor con.

Noted. The proper venue for my disgust of liberals is to blow up innocents. Thanks for advice.

Giuliani took the "America can do no wrong and anyone who criticizes her hates her" line.

No, he knocked it out of the park. Here it is again. What Paul should have said is that our policy of enabling dictatorships [like House of Saud] in exchange for stability has led to tyrants redirecting the anger of the Arab street into anti-Americanism through madrassas.

And this falsehood that "they hate us for our freedom" is sheer self-serving stupidity.

They hate us because we champion the values of the Enlightenment - things like Woman's Suffrage, Homosexual Rights, Seperation of Church & State. Its ironic that people like me are risking our lives to defend what you claim are your principles. And we're smeared as warmongering fascists because of it. Honestly, if we submit to Sharia, who do you think will be the first to be lined up against the wall, the Christians or the Liberals?

Buying into this requires checking your intelligence at the door.

An appeal to conformity, all intelligent people believe "x" ...is that all the game you've got?

BTW, I tracked down the source of the "Gingrich served his wife with divorce papers in the hospital" smear - not true, its gossip, came from an opponent's campaign ad and slithered its way into Leftist Mythology. So I guess I'm right to discount every unsubstantiated assertion from the Left. Liars all.

Fen, this is the version of events given at the website you used for your information:

"Jackie Gingrich ... who had started treatments for uterine cancer in 1978, underwent surgery in 1980. A day after the operation, Mr. Gingrich came to the hospital. Since they had already separated, he called her room to see if he could come up. Once there, according to friends who knew them both, he began talking about the terms of the divorce. She has said that she threw him out of the room. In a few months they were divorced ..."

When I saw the twin towers collapse on TV at a friend's house in Rio de Janeiro, it was from a perspective far different from that of my fellow Americans. I hate to throw a cold bucket on the vociferous grieving here in the USA, but the fact is that many of my fellow Latins still harbor bitter memories of Operation Condor and other recent American interventions in the internal affairs of Latin countries that led to deaths and "disappearances" of tens of thousands of Latins. Not only Castro, but other heads of state like Kirchner, Bachelet, Morales, Lula, and Chavez have good reason to despise American policies. My experiences of Latins' sentiments on that September 11 day is well summed up by an insightful article that appeared in the German magazine Der Spiegel four days after the attack. I quote it here in full, with credit to the original in German:

The Mood turns against the Cowboy“Stimmung gegen den Cowboy” Original in German -- http://www.spiegel.de/

The attack at the heart of the USA causes not only mourning and horror. In Latin America, one also senses secret Schadenfreude.

Actually, they had met for dinner. Then the eight Brazilian friends sat just like all the world before the TV and focused on the scenes of catastrophe in New York.

Two doctors, an entrepreneur, a professor and a journalist were there -- educated, friendly, sophisticated people from Rio de Janeiro -- two of them with children who study in Boston. Like anyone, they were full of sympathy for the victims. However, that sympathy expressly excluded the USA.

Maybe it was the pictures that reminded them of a trailer of “Independence Day” and satisfied the eyes more than the head: everything appears unreal, an alien attacks the earth -- the flame ripping up the tower, the dust that rages through the housing canyons of Manhattan and drives the people before it. Then come the politicians in their patriotic dress. By the time of the pep-rally speech by the president, the Brazilian friends had renamed the film they saw running there. It was now called, rather derogatorily, “Criminal Court.”

The doctor says that the Americans she knows are helpful and nice -- and ignorant with respect to foreign countries, “They simply assume that all world loves them.” And her husband adds, “Now they are amazed that it is not so.”

“Their politics is the problem,” the journalist offers while ex-Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger demands bombardment of Afghanistan, “Bush is an illiterate, and that makes him dangerous”. Murmur of agreement. It is all directed against TV-pictures that cause sympathy world-wide, but they brace themselves against the so-called solidarity.

“They thought they were invulnerable,” the entrepreneur says not without malice, “and then a dozen people enter the country and explode everything into the air.” After which the group, not without head-shaking admiration, discusses the perfect logistics of the assassins.

Nobody among the friends is Muslim. Islam is of no importance to them. They go to Hollywood-films, they like Frank Sinatra, they buy Häagen Dasz ice cream. However, it is almost as if those insane fanatics have articulated, in the most brutal way, the dark sentiment of resistance that lives in the breast of the cultivated Latin American.

“It is an attack on freedom,” says George W. Bush. “Nonsense,” the doctor says. “It is an attack on the USA.” And as Kissinger speaks -- the man who shares responsibility for dictatorships in Latin America -- nothing but disgust is registered in this cultivated group.

Just the day before, Kissinger was accused of participating in the murder of a Chilean general unwilling to take part in a coup d’etat. Many would like to see him stand trial before a court of law. Now he is a world-strategist, speaking of “wiping out” Evil -- not with one single stroke of vengeance, but with a “systematic attack.” The doctor says, “That means war.”

The longer they sit together before the TV, the more they share in their anti-Americanism. And in their fear they feel that, “one can only pray that Bush commit no egregious error.“

The Brazilian daily of the next morning continues the protest bluntly. “This attack,” a commentator writes in the Jornal do Brasil, “is not surprising.” Thereupon follows the list of political failures -- Washington has brazenly quit the Kyoto climate agreement, ignores the racism in its own country and intervenes in the cultures of other nations.

Even more heartless, another commentator, writes, “Pepper in the eye of another does no harm; it only burns only in one’s own.” The USA felt no sorrow for the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nor for the civilians in Vietnam. Nor for the victims of the dictatorships they supported in Latin America. There is even open schadenfreude: “This cowboy doesn't draw as quickly as he claims,” O Globo writes, “and he is vulnerable.”

And it’s not only the absolutely “americanized “ colossus of Brazil that manifests these sentiments. In numerous press commentaries in Latin America, “solidarity” is more often denied than confirmed. The invitation to participate in common mourning is refused.

In recent months, the new politics of the USA has reminded many folks of the old politics. The fact that Bush has recently filled key posts pertaining to his Latin American politics with old warriors from the Reagan-Contra Era has not escaped notice, but instead has aroused the old fears.

The day of the catastrophe has also revealed that it is not just about fanatical Palestinian women, who pass through the streets trilling, while their sons shoot volleys of ecstasy into the air. Not just about discussion forums on Chinese websites that find understanding for the perpetrators. It is about the “millions of people in the third world who are condemned to die under the American hegemony.”

No, the resentment against the USA exploits their darkest day as an occasion to give expression to long-suppressed sentiments -- and with it to counter the official rank-closing of the heads of state with the White House.

And so one thing becomes clear: Their fear in beholding an injured cowboy, who in vengeance might pull off a wild shot. “One thing is sure,” one of the eight friends says this evening, “the 21st Century has begun and things look bad for our children.”

Doyle: In Fen's world, the Iraq War was necessary to avoid the imposition of Sharia in the United States. No wonder he supports it!

Doyle, Iraq is about reforming the MiddleEast, providing a Democratic alternative to co-opt the jihadist in Syria and Saudi. Do you not understand how influential the freedoms of West Germany were to the fall of the Eastern bloc and eventually the Soviet Union?

But just as a hypothetical, if Iraq was about avoiding the imposition of Sharia in the United States, would you support the war? A simple yes or no...

Unfortunately, I don't buy it. If we were fighting the Brits, say, I'd expect that they would respond in kind in the treatment of our prisoners. The argument is ridiculous in the current conflict.

Did you listen to McCain's argument? Of course not.

The point was that upholding our values and not torturing or treating detainees in a cruel, inhuman or degrading manner (and that is the standard, simply "not torturing" is not good enough, either under U.S. or international law, no matter how many times the administration or the candidates claim otherwise) is about us, not the detainees. We don't torture because it diminishes us and the intelligence gained from torture is of questionable value.

Matthias Matussek: Bush is an illiterate ...condemned to die under the American hegemony ...USA felt no sorrow for the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ...Nor for the civilians in Vietnam ...brazenly quit the Kyoto climate agreement ...ignores the racism in its own country ...intervenes in the cultures of other nations.

Please go frel yourself. Yes, I'm sure you're also upset we intervened in your "culture" that threw minorities into the ovens. Kyoto? Sure, we deserved it because we didn't support your socialist hoax. Really, your bs may play well in Europe, but not here. We know you.

Doyle, Iraq is about reforming the MiddleEast, providing a Democratic alternative to co-opt the jihadist in Syria and Saudi.

If this is truly the case, why don't we just quit sucking up to the royal family of Saudi Arabia and demand that they introduce democratic reforms and stop funding the Jihadists? Seems like every time they tell us to jump, Cheney asks "how high?"

Doyle wrote concerning Giuliani: "His candidacy is a joke, premised on an exploitation of a tragedy."

I see his candidacy differently. He is running as a centrist and focusing on his leadership. AS a conservative, I do not care for where he would lead us, but I would find him preferable to Senator Clinton or Obama should they get the nomination.

If this is truly the case, why don't we just quit sucking up to the royal family of Saudi Arabia and demand that they introduce democratic reforms and stop funding the Jihadists?

Because we're boxed in. Saud stabilizes the world economy, who's lifebllod is oil. Wild flucuations in the price of oil will lead to economic collapse [see: Great Depression] resulting in world-wide anarchy, which leads to depravation, which leads to war.

Saudi is the end-game. Insisting we take them down now is like insisting we push our picket-line of pawns before the major pieces are taken.

Sad, simple, silly Cyrus. If one is really concerned about the state of marriage and the family in this nation then it is of little concern that a man who is one of our leaders tells his first wife (of three -- for now) that he wants a divorce while she is recovering from cancer. No, what should concern you is that some evil liberal journalist misrepresented that there were actually legal papers at the hospital. There were no papers there!

Of course I did. I don't agree with it. (And yes, I know of his ordeal in Vietnam and I'm just a chickenhawk).

I don't agree that the type of interrogations we are talking about amount to torture. I don't agree that if we are pure and chaste that the enemy will reciprocate. I don't take your word for the fact that the information gained is always useless. And I know you disagree. You don't need to tell us again.

Freder defines torture broadly and then attacks narrowly. I support waterboarding; he equates that with feeding people into shredders. Hence, I'm a monstrous war criminal, no better than the people who almost beat McCain to death.

Fred asked: If this is truly the case, why don't we just quit sucking up to the royal family of Saudi Arabia and demand that they introduce democratic reforms and stop funding the Jihadists?

Fen replied: Because we're boxed in. Saud stabilizes the world economy, who's lifebllod is oil. Wild flucuations in the price of oil will lead to economic collapse [see: Great Depression] resulting in world-wide anarchy, which leads to depravation, which leads to war.

Saudi is the end-game. Insisting we take them down now is like insisting we push our picket-line of pawns before the major pieces are taken.

You'd think a member of the reality-based community would understand this.

Freder: degrading manner (and that is the standard, simply "not torturing" is not good enough...)

Again, if I show the sole of my shoe to a muslim terrorist, I am a "war criminal" by your standards [degrading]? Is that not an accurate representation of your position? Or do you have exceptions to your sacred international "law"?

hdhouse said..."Rudy is a pig in a blanket and you will find that out in due course."

Correcto Mundo.

His shot at Paul was nothing more than the usual cheap shots he's known for throwing out for crowd reaction.

Rudy is roundly hated throughout New York for doing little if anything BEFORE 9/11...then taking full credit for being the man AFTER the attack. (Like putting the command center in the towers...after already being attacked...brilliant.)

Also: One week BEFORE the attacks his approval rating was plummeting (he'd already pulled out of the race against Hillary because he knew he'd get crushed), had the audacity to announce, via a televised press conference, that he was divorcing his wife (before she even knew about it), was having an affair...and then went on to recommend one his corrupt cronies to become head of Homeland Security.

Then you should be able to explain why. Its obvious, right? While you're at it, please explain why we waterboard our own Spec Ops at SERE school? Perhaps you should demand the DOD stop this "inhumane" practice.

I don't agree that if we are pure and chaste that the enemy will reciprocate. I don't take your word for the fact that the information gained is always useless. And I know you disagree. You don't need to tell us again.

Apparently I do. Because no matter how many times I state my position and the law very clearly it is obvious that many posters on this site continue to either ignore it, deliberately distort, or just don't understand it. And of course you misunderstood or distorted McCain's position too (which happens to be the same as mine and the official policy of the the U.S. military as contained in the Army Field Manual on Interrogation which McCain referenced).

I will repeat it one more time for clarity and the hope that it will finally sink in:

1) Just "not torturing" does not meet the minimum requirements of either U.S. or international law. The standards of treatment are much higher than that. We may quibble about how much coercion is too much. But one thing is certain, waterboarding, even if you don't consider it torture (and even our very own State Department considers it torture, that is why no one is willing to publicly say we have waterboarded detainees) is certainly on the that part of the spectrum that lies between cruel treatment and torture, not acceptable treatment and cruel or degrading treatment.

2) Humane and proper treatment and minimal due process standards are about maintaining our commitments to the rule of law, democracy and morality, not ensuring that the terrorists are coddled or even that they follow the rules.

3) The consequences of using torture and violating basic human rights, even if there may be some hypothetical tactical gains from the immediate intelligence gained, are far outweighed by the strategic disadvantages of such methods.

Freder: The consequences of using torture and violating basic human rights, even if there may be some hypothetical tactical gains from the immediate intelligence gained, are far outweighed by the strategic disadvantages of such methods.

Fair enough. I respect your position [and McCain's] even though I think its naive. But for the record - Freder would not support waterboarding even if that practice would prevent his city [and family] from being destroyed by a nuke? Right?

It is interesting that the liberals on this board find themselves defending Paul and hating Giuliani. Except for foriegn policy, Paul would be the nightmare President for liberals, since he wants to dismantle big government. Maybe they assume he is unelectable (like Reagan).

I also like the new left tactic of accusing social conservatives of being traitors for supporting Giuliani. The thing liberals forget is that conservativism is less an ideology and more plain common sense. Thus, conservatives will often opt for the more practical solution based on facts. A Giuliani presidency will be far better for social conservatives than Hillary or Obama.

after what we've seen over the past 6+ years you're still pounding away at the liberals wanting a "big government???"

take a look at the spending congress (controlled for the past 12 years by republicans) has authorized during litte georgie's reign as king...and don't forget the surplus we used to have in the coffers...and the massive debt we have now...or the trade deficit.

90% of the people here have absolutely NO interest in hearing anything they don't already believe to be so...especially if it relates to americans being responsible for literally ANYTHING...EVER.

if you did a poll right now, a vast majority would say that we're winning in iraq, and that we'll eventually create wonderful democracies throughout the mideast...and most of all...that bush has done a fine job while in office. (don't concern yourself with katrina, wiretapping, warnings pre-9/11, sotu lies, WMD, any form of diplomacy, u.s. attorney firings, cia agents being outed, torture or america's reputation throughout the world.)

delusion to the max...and if you don't believe me...just read fen or sloan's comments.

Freder, I ask the question in good faith, please don't dodge: if I deliberately show the sole of my boot [which is highly offensive and "degrading" to muslims under international law], to psychologically intimidate an Islamic terrorist, have I violated international law; am I a war criminal?

Either you have exceptions to international law and admit its "broken", or you maintain its sacrosanct and I am a "war criminal". Which is it?

No. But we see that the change in tactics appears to be working: "Every thing I am seeing in Anbar does support that there has been a very positive change out here. Attacks are way down, and lots more volunteers for police and Army. (Mostly police.) Marine officers and NCOs I talk with are optimistic -- measured and not jubilant -- but optimistic that if they keep getting good support, they can keep up the good progress. Just don't cut off support too soon, or declare victory too soon. Still lots of work to go and tough days ahead" [Micheal Yon, via Instapundit]

You're happy the Anbar province is on the mend, right? Or are you disappointed, because you're invested in its decimation?

From the comments here, it is clear to me that Rudy is the candidate most feared by the left side of the blogosphere.

Of course he is the most feared. Who is more likely to start a war because he just doesn't like the way the Premier looked at him? Who is more likely to begin the process of having every infant barcoded? Who will make sure that Driving while Black becomes a federal crime? And who is more likely to do whatever the hell they want to cause their "Gumby dammit"? Rudy.Rudy.Rudy.

"Who is more likely to start a war because he just doesn't like the way the Premier looked at him? Who is more likely to begin the process of having every infant barcoded? Who will make sure that Driving while Black becomes a federal crime? And who is more likely to do whatever the hell they want to cause their "Gumby dammit"?"

The sane person's answer to each and every one of those rhetorical questions is "no candidate from either the Republicans or Democrats is going to do anything remotely approaching any of those things, and anyone who suggests differently is either a partisan muckraker (if they don't really believe it) or dangerously delusional (if they do)."

Sad, simple, silly Cyrus... what should concern you is that some evil liberal journalist misrepresented that there were actually legal papers at the hospital. There were no papers there!

I hate it when evil liberals misrepresent important facts. But what I hate most about these evil liberals is not that they are evil, and not that they are liberal, but that they are sometimes clever. Take the Gingrich story for example. According to Jackie Gingrich, the day after her surgery for uterine cancer, Newt Gingrich appeared at her hospital bedside "with a yellow legal pad outlining the details for their divorce."

So what do the evil liberals do with this information? They start distorting it. "Legal pad" becomes legal papers. And they get away with this because legal pads consist of papers that are legal size. And legal size paper is sometimes called legal paper.

Then, because the papers outlined terms for a divorce, the evil liberals call them divorce papers. The topper is that the evil liberals say he "served" the papers. And what does "serve" make you think of? Tennis!

So the evil liberals distort the truth of the episode to leave an image of Newt Gingrich walking into his wife's hospital room and hitting legal divorce papers at her with a tennis racket!

The truth that the evil liberals won't tell is that there was no tennis racket involved and there was no serving. And most important, the papers outlining the divorce always remained firmly attached to the pad.

This reminds me a lot of how evil liberals distort the news coming out of Iraq by only talking about the bad stuff that happens once or twice a month there. What about all the good stuff that happens every day?

If evil liberals were honest, they'd talk about the good things that Newt did for his wife. For example, he didn't tell his wife that he was divorcing her before her surgery. That would have been a real bummer for her right before a big operation. There was already a lot of stess on her without having to think about divorce from Newt. Plus, if she had died in surgery, he would have made her feel bad for no reason. What Newt did was thoughtful. He considered his wife's welfare and waited until she was out of surgery (and awake) to tell her about wanting a divorce. Now that's what I call class.

Cyrus, good one: For example, he didn't tell his wife that he was divorcing her before her surgery. That would have been a real bummer for her right before a big operation.

However, I suspect knowing NEwt was divorcing her may have actually lifted her spirits.

Their defense of Newt's reprehensible behavior is pathetic. (Fen, how old are you, anyway? I suspect you're pretty young by your under-developed reasoning faculties).

Sloan, do you understand the difference between defending a person's statement and supporting that person's election to the Presidency? We may think Paul's statement was largely true, while not wanting him elected President! Whoa!

Freder, I ask the question in good faith, please don't dodge: if I deliberately show the sole of my boot [which is highly offensive and "degrading" to muslims under international law], to psychologically intimidate an Islamic terrorist, have I violated international law; am I a war criminal?

Fen, I don't think that even under the most pacifist interpretation of international law would a mere insult be considered "degrading" behavior or a war crime. Repeated and continued assaults on ones personal dignity would be, but showing the bottom of your shoe would not be. You could go a long way beyond that before you ran afoul of international law and entered the realm of criminal behavior. And international law does recognize that there are degrees of war crimes.

And why ask me? You can easily find the Army Field Manual on line and see what the military considers appropriate behavior when interrogating captives, regardless of their status.

Now that I have answered your question completely and I hope clearly, answer a couple for me unequivocally.

Is waterboarding cruel and degrading treatment? If not, why not? Do you understand that cruel and degrading treatment is strictly prohibited by both U.S. and international law?

Then you should be able to explain why. Its obvious, right? While you're at it, please explain why we waterboard our own Spec Ops at SERE school? Perhaps you should demand the DOD stop this "inhumane" practice.

10:57 AM

its a torture survival/preparation course. the fact that it is included in that portion of the training just about necessarily makes it torture.

the exalted,why in the world would you even try to discuss anything, especially iraq, with fen??

this is a person who actually thinks iraq will eventually be like...a giant starbucks...with sunnis, shiites, kurds, the whole gang...sipping cappuccinos as they trade heart-warming stories about how wonderful it is to be a democracy...and of course, discussing how many family members they lost during the "reorganization" process.

fen, trying to translate the ridiculous points (and i don't mean the one on top of your head) you try to make regarding why or why not water-boarding is or is not torture isn't easy. you apparently feel americans can do damn near anything they want...as long as they believe the captured party is trying to harm us in some way...and screw the geneva convention or any form of military law.

i'd like to think you're not as dumb as sloan, but you keep adding fodder to the right wing delusion mix.

Oh Fen, I have one other question. Where on earth did you get the idea that showing the sole of your shoe to an Arab during an interrogation would be considered a war crime under international law? Has any major human rights organization made that assertion? The UN? The war crimes tribunal at The Hague? The ICC? Is there any record of anyone being charged with such an offense under any international law, treaty, or agreement?

Freder Frederson said..."Oh Fen, I have one other question. Where on earth did you get the idea that showing the sole of your shoe to an Arab during an interrogation would be considered a war crime under international law?"

"Reprehensible behavior" that you lied about. Thats whats pathetic. You can't even post a mea culpa, just shift and spin instead. Disgraceful. Still no sources from you either.

Freder: Is waterboarding cruel and degrading treatment? Yes. Do you understand that cruel and degrading treatment is strictly prohibited by both U.S. and international law? Yes. But please define degrading.

Freder: Do you understand that cruel and degrading treatment is strictly prohibited by both U.S. and international law? Where on earth did you get the idea that showing the sole of your shoe to an Arab during an interrogation would be considered a war crime under international law?

From you of course, last time this came up. Perhaps you can actually define what "degrading" means under international law? Or you are making exceptions to it, Freder, its either sacrosanct or not. Echo?

Lucky: fen, trying to translate the ridiculous points...Exalted: why in the world would you even try to discuss anything, especially iraq, with fen?... this is a person who actually thinks iraq will eventually be like...a giant starbucksDoyle: Explaining why waterboarding is torture is actually difficult. It's like explaining why Ford is a kind of car.

Cute. All our resident moonbats have once again dodged the question, trotted out their strawmen and ad homs. None have the intelligence or courage to answer these questions. No wonder they are afraid of Brit Hume. Here they are again [and I answered Freder]:

1) Explain in laymen's terms why waterboarding should be considered torture. Can you even describe it without hyperbole? Also define "degrading" as meant under your sacred international law.

2) As a hypothetical, if Iraq was about avoiding the imposition of Sharia in the United States, would you support the war?

3) What real evidence is there that Iran has a WMD program, and how is that evidence different than what we had on Iraq?

From you of course, last time this came up. Perhaps you can actually define what "degrading" means under international law?

When on earth did I ever say this? My position has been consistent and I think entirely reasonable. If we adhere to the Army Field Manual on Interrogation, I do not think we will be in any danger of violating International laws on degrading, cruel or inhuman treatment. I will leave it up to the experts in the uniformed military to decide at what point between showing the sole of your shoe to a detainee and waterboarding the line is crossed, but I am certain it is somewhere between the two (and well before the latter).

But for the record - Freder would not support waterboarding even if that practice would prevent his city [and family] from being destroyed by a nuke? Right?"

For the one in a billion exception where there is a true ticking nuclear time bomb exception, then a justification defense for the interrogator would be appropriate.

But so far, we have yet to see any such situation (and frankly, I have never actually heard of a documented ticking timebomb scenario where torture actually prevented a catastrophic attack).

Freder: For the one in a billion exception where there is a true ticking nuclear time bomb exception, then a justification defense for the interrogator would be appropriate.

Geez Freder, you've actually disappointed me. I thought all that talk about international law and Geneva was based on principle. I honestly didn't think you would allow exceptions, even when it served your own self interest.

But there it is - Freder says we can't waterboard terrorists to prevent our Marines from being blown away by an IED, but when its his family, his city, his life at stake, its somehow different. Damn...

And you didn't answer my question, Fen.

I thought I did. You asked if I believed waterboarding was inhumane and degrading, and if I knew that "degrading" treatment was a violation of international law. I answered yes to both. If thats not what you're referring to, please pose the question again. I'm leaving work at 7 but will check back in tomorrow AM.

Still waiting for you to define what "degrading" is under international law. Not that it matters much anymore, considering you admit you'd waive it when it suits your self-interests.

Geez Freder, you've actually disappointed me. I thought all that talk about international law and Geneva was based on principle. I honestly didn't think you would allow exceptions, even when it served your own self interest.

Sorry Freder, I allowed my contempt for our resident moonbats to spill over to you. Not warranted. At least you were honest, props to you for that.

But there it is - Freder says we can't waterboard terrorists to prevent our Marines from being blown away by an IED, but when its his family, his city, his life at stake, its somehow different. Damn...

No, Fen you are wrong, I was not concerned for my own life or the life of my family--they are not worth stooping to torture. The question you posed was about a ticking nuclear time bomb in a city. That is the exception I will make.

As for the IED argument. That is the classic tactical v. strategic decision that militaries make every day in wars. Soldiers are always sacrificed in war to advance operational and strategic goals. Prohibiting torture is just another one of these decisions and the military believes a very wise one.

Freder said...."I was not concerned for my own life or the life of my family--they are not worth stooping to torture. The question you posed was about a ticking nuclear time bomb in a city. That is the exception I will make"

Wow, a very interesting admission. How big would the city have to be in order for you to make an exception? What if the nuclear time bomb was in a small town or village? How many innocent lives would you be willing to sacrifice before you changed your mind about "stooping" to torture? A hundred? A thousand? Five million? Just curious.

of course, that scenario, where we just know that the suspect is guilty and knows of a "ticking bomb" only exists in 24 and face/off. so the question is about as relevant as "if the space aliens come, will you fight them?"

I also like the new left tactic of accusing social conservatives of being traitors for supporting Giuliani.

its not about being "traitors" its about being hypocrites after the sad and pathetic crying over clinton "what about the children!?!?" nonsense. clinton was portrayed as the greatest moral degenerate of our times, while rudy, who had a public affair while in office, is treated as a saint.

though, its easier for you to take the strawman argument, so that of course is your solution.

What if the nuclear time bomb was in a small town or village? How many innocent lives would you be willing to sacrifice before you changed your mind about "stooping" to torture? A hundred? A thousand? Five million? Just curious.

The hypothetical is so ridiculous and the circumstances so extreme that a number really isn't worth discussing. How about asking how much time we have. Two hours? Four? Twelve? How certain we are we have the right guy? 25%, 50%, 90.

What I was willing to admit that there are some extremely rare(note I said one in a billion--not as a precise statistic but to stress the rarity) circumstances where the danger was so extreme and the consequences so serious that the interrogators could, after the fact, claim justification as a defense against charges of torture.

Freder: circumstances where the danger was so extreme and the consequences so serious that the interrogators could, after the fact, claim justification as a defense against charges of torture.

Freder, the point is: after months of damning anyone who contested international law or geneva, you've admitted you have your own exceptions to those laws & treaties. Do you understand how significantly that undermines your position?

You can't have it both ways, you can't say "torture is illegal under international law.. unless there's a city a stake". Else, why draw the line at cities - why not a football stadium or a shopping mall.. or a platoon about to be ravaged by an IED?

The hypothetical is so ridiculous and the circumstances so extreme that a number really isn't worth discussing

So true. We ran a similar scenario way back when: a dozen radicals hijacked airplanes [with razors no less, LOL] and then crashed them into Wall Street. Ha! What a ridiculous and extreme hypothetical that was.

Also, as you should know, I used the exact same source that you did for everything I posted, with one exception.

Here's the exception:

"with a yellow legal pad outlining the details for their divorce."

For that tidbit, you can check a Frontline report entitled "The Long March of Newt Gingrich."

Or if you prefer, you can check this version of the story as told by Lee Howell, a Gingrich friend and associate:

"Newt came up there with his yellow legal pad, and he had a list of things on how the divorce was going to be handled. He wanted her to sign it. She was still recovering from surgery, still sort of out of it, and he comes in with a yellow sheet of paper, handwritten, and wants her to sign it.

You know, fen, I was helping you to defend Newt. And I can help even more. For example, when Newt went to the hospital immediately after his wife's cancer surgery to tell her he wanted a divorce, he was classy enough to refrain from bringing his mistress with him. That's another fact that's rarely reported. Liberals always want to overlook the considerate things that Newt does and emphasize the bad things. Because I'm not an evil liberal and because I don't want to focus on bad news, I'm not even going to mention Newt's failure to pay child support.

Remember, fen, I'm on your side here. And btw, thank you for apologizing for being rude.

btw -- my china example was an example of a pony that everybody wants but cant afford. get it? cant afford. so while you're blathering about the Great Glorious Iraq Liberation And Democracy Project, think about the 500+ billion and lives we have spent on it.

me? I'd rather have offered $500 billion as a bounty for OBL and his ilk and gone home.